pulmonary medicine
EB-2 National Interest Waiver — Merits Decision
Underlying petition: DENIED · Service Center Operations (SCOPS)
Legal elements discussed — Matter of Dhanasar
Prong 1 — Substantial Merit & National Importance
PASSPetitioner argued: proposed endeavor has national importance
Evidence type: published articles, expert letters
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finding: ACCEPTED
“the evidence submitted establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is of national importance.”
Decision PDF, p. 3Open source PDF
Prong 2 — Well Positioned to Advance the Endeavor
PASSPetitioner argued: well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor
Evidence type: CV, academic records, published works, grants, peer review, citations, reference letters, employment verification
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Prong 3 — Balancing the Waiver's Benefits
PASSPetitioner argued: on balance, waiver would benefit the United States
Evidence type: track record of successful research, significance of proposed work
USCIS finding: ACCEPTED
“The Petitioner, therefore, meets the third prong of the Dhanasar framework.”
Decision PDF, p. 4Open source PDF
Other findings in the decision
Findings on the underlying EB-2 classification and other issues, distinct from the three Dhanasar prongs above.
“the translated material is sufficient to meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that he is an advanced degree professional, he has established that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 visa classification.”
p. 2
What this decision can’t tell you
This decision comes from a case that was denied and then appealed. Every case here is in that position — it cannot be used to estimate an overall approval rate, and it cannot predict the outcome of any individual case, including yours. USCIS officers exercise discretion on facts that are never fully captured in a written decision.
This decision satisfied all three Dhanasar prongs. Describe your own work and see which decisions discussed the same issue.
Describe your situation →Related decisions
Questions this raises for your lawyer
- On appeal, CV, academic records, published works, grants, peer review, citations, reference letters, employment verification was enough to satisfy Prong 2 (well positioned to advance the endeavor). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, track record of successful research, significance of proposed work was enough to satisfy Prong 3 (balancing the waiver's benefits). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- On appeal, published articles, expert letters was enough to satisfy Prong 1 (substantial merit & national importance). What made that evidence hold up where the original filing apparently didn't?
- This appeal succeeded after an initial denial. What new evidence or argument was added at the appeal stage, and could I include that from the start instead of waiting for a denial?